In what ways do the film address globalization?
The film largely portrays globalization in a negative light, by showing the often unseen effects of industrialization. For example, the Juhu slum is shown to be transformed into a center of commerce in a matter of years, portraying how the issues of poverty are just masked rather than addressed. The film shows how wealth becomes distributed even more unequally as a result of globalization, which allows gangs to prosper.
The negative effects of the prevalence of western culture and the increasing desire for wealth are symbolized by Salim's corruption. Particularly, the shot of Salim being shot in the bathtub full of money is a literal image of how money corrupts and in the end leaves nothing but carnage. In contrast, Jamal's reason for going on the show is not for wealth, but for Latika. In that sense, Salim is corrupted by money and the desire for the wealth that is representative of globalization, whereas Jamal's ability to prioritize love over money allows him to survive his struggles. Therefore, the film presents globalization as a corrupting power that allows no real hope for solving the issues that already exist.
How does the filmmaker address social issues in the East vs the West?
Since the film is set in India, there is of course a greater focus on social issues in the East, from the Eastern perspective. Boyle attempts to force the viewer into a intimate confrontation with issues such as child trafficking with unforgettable scenes such as a young boy being blinded in order to make more money. Combined with economic despair, issues such as religion are also brought up: the brothers' mother is killed in a riot against Muslims. By relating significant events of the protagonist's life within the context of major social in the East, Boyle directly addresses the social issues prevalent in the East.
In contrast, Boyle's focus on the West centers largely on money and misinformation. The limited time Boyle spends portraying Western interaction with the East includes the portrayal of the German tourists and the American tourists. The German tourists at the Taj Mahal, even with their pamphlets of information, believe the local boy. This, perhaps, indicates a willingness of the West to believe the convenient truth rather than investigate the core problem. The true problem is Jamal's situation, but the tourists ignore that to focus on his knowledge and insight. The American tourists present the same ignorance of true issues. When Jamal is being beaten and says, "This is the real India", the American woman ignores the comment and attempts to fix the problem with money. The unwillingness of the woman to look beyond the surface to look at Jamal's situation and her attempt to mask the situation with money exposes a shallow Western perspective.
Monday, January 23, 2017
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
Slumdog Millionare Review
Synopsis:
Jamal Malik, an 18-year-old from the notorious slums of Mumbai, becomes a contestant on the Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. Despite having very little education, he answers all of the questions correctly. The police, suspicious that Jamal cheated because it is impossible for a "slumdog" to know all of the answers, detain him. After he is arrested, Jamal recounts the events in his life that provide him with the answer. These flashbacks form the premise of the the rest of the film. Among Jamal's flashbacks is his love interest Latika, who is from the same slums as Jamal. Escaping from a gangster, Latika is separated from Jamal. Jamal goes on the show in order to be found by Latika, who regularly watches it. The ensuing story tells the tale of their reunion.
Critical Review 1:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4362622/Slumdog-Millionaire-may-be-a-good-cause-but-its-not-a-good-movie.html
This critics judges Boyle's characters to be undeveloped stereotypes, removed from the truth of the "complexities and heartbreaks of real life". It further criticizes the fact that it perhaps portrays the idea that "everyone in India is a criminal, a fool, a saint or a convenient mix of all three". The author majorly takes issue with the impossibility of the situation, and the focus on this very impossible question than on the social issues it skims through.
Furthermore, the reviewer slams Boyle for trying to do too much: "Boyle simply tries to rick as many boxes as possible", suggesting that the mix of all of his separate elements do not necessarily function together. It does applaud the good case of the film, noting the ambition of the director to draw attention to the issues that plague poverty-ridden regions.
Critical Review 2:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/movies/12slum.html
This reviewer offers a balanced critique, praising the elements that heighten the film's mystique while offering a skeptical view of the ostentatious elements of Bollywood forced into the film.
The film embraces Simon Beaufoy's screenplay, saying that it "embraces a fluid view of time and space, effortlessly between the young contestant's past and his present..Here, narrative doesn't begin and end: it flows and eddies - just like life." It also praises the young actors' appeal and ability to draw symapthy from any audience. Boyle's "upbeat pitch and seductive visual style (with cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle)" is also highly regarded.
The problem this reviewer takes is with the synthetic feel of the film: "what gives me reluctant pause about this bright, cheery, hard-to-resist movie is that its joyfulness feels more like a filmmaker’s calculation than an honest cry from the heart about the human spirit". His technique, perhaps, is beautiful but the emotion may not be genuine.
Jamal Malik, an 18-year-old from the notorious slums of Mumbai, becomes a contestant on the Who Wants to Be a Millionaire. Despite having very little education, he answers all of the questions correctly. The police, suspicious that Jamal cheated because it is impossible for a "slumdog" to know all of the answers, detain him. After he is arrested, Jamal recounts the events in his life that provide him with the answer. These flashbacks form the premise of the the rest of the film. Among Jamal's flashbacks is his love interest Latika, who is from the same slums as Jamal. Escaping from a gangster, Latika is separated from Jamal. Jamal goes on the show in order to be found by Latika, who regularly watches it. The ensuing story tells the tale of their reunion.
Critical Review 1:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4362622/Slumdog-Millionaire-may-be-a-good-cause-but-its-not-a-good-movie.html
This critics judges Boyle's characters to be undeveloped stereotypes, removed from the truth of the "complexities and heartbreaks of real life". It further criticizes the fact that it perhaps portrays the idea that "everyone in India is a criminal, a fool, a saint or a convenient mix of all three". The author majorly takes issue with the impossibility of the situation, and the focus on this very impossible question than on the social issues it skims through.
Furthermore, the reviewer slams Boyle for trying to do too much: "Boyle simply tries to rick as many boxes as possible", suggesting that the mix of all of his separate elements do not necessarily function together. It does applaud the good case of the film, noting the ambition of the director to draw attention to the issues that plague poverty-ridden regions.
Critical Review 2:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/movies/12slum.html
This reviewer offers a balanced critique, praising the elements that heighten the film's mystique while offering a skeptical view of the ostentatious elements of Bollywood forced into the film.
The film embraces Simon Beaufoy's screenplay, saying that it "embraces a fluid view of time and space, effortlessly between the young contestant's past and his present..Here, narrative doesn't begin and end: it flows and eddies - just like life." It also praises the young actors' appeal and ability to draw symapthy from any audience. Boyle's "upbeat pitch and seductive visual style (with cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle)" is also highly regarded.
The problem this reviewer takes is with the synthetic feel of the film: "what gives me reluctant pause about this bright, cheery, hard-to-resist movie is that its joyfulness feels more like a filmmaker’s calculation than an honest cry from the heart about the human spirit". His technique, perhaps, is beautiful but the emotion may not be genuine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)